Re: Sheevaplug Kernel packages - backports.org vs people.debian.org/~tbm/orion vs tbm snapshots

[debian.arm.nospam@sub.noloop.net]

On Sat, Oct 10, 2009 at 11:10:07 +0100, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> * debian.arm.nospam@sub.noloop.net <debian.arm.nospam@sub.noloop.net> [2009-10-09 13:54]:
> > for a Sheevaplug, what is the difference between the linux-image-kirkwood
> > packages on backports.org (lenny-backports) vs. the
> > people.debian.org/~tbm/orion repository (vs the snapshots announced
> > here on the list)?
> > 
> Now the question p.d.o/~tbm/orion vs backports.org: I don't think it
> matters a lot.  In fact, I could probably copy the kernel from
> backports.org rather than unstable to the Orion repo.  But since the
> kernel from unstable works fine on lenny, I don't think it matters.
> OTOH, maybe it would reduce confusion if I used the kernels from
> backports.org.
> 
> Comments on this welcome.

Thanks for the summary. I'm mostly concerned about which of the two 
repositories (yours and bpo) are most likely to be up to date wrt
security patches etc. For example, it was hard to know which of those
had the patch for the recent null pointer vulnerability in <= 2.6.30.4.

Also, are there any extra marvell-specific patches in your orion repo,
or are the bpo packages configured and patched identically?

Finally, regarding stable vs unstable, personally it doesn't matter
but if there's a difference in gcc versions used, then I guess maybe
the unstable kernels may cause trouble if there is a need to
compile 3rd party kernel modules?

And, thanks again for your efforts :)